Although I am an American citizen and a citizen of Alaska, and I accept
the responsibilities given to me as a legislator in the Alaska House
of Representatives, I speak now as an Eskimo, as an Alaska Native, within
the framework of our controversy with the State of Alaska and the United
States of America. My purpose in this paper is to inform you of the
present controversy in Alaska relating to the claims of the Eskimo,
Indian and Aleut people to land that we have occupied for centuries.

Although we recognize the fact that there is presently little that
we can do to secure totally all of the land we occupied in pre-Russian
and American times, we do not believe that the simple planting of a
flag on our soil secures that land for any country at no cost to it.
We are now seeking to secure a settlement with the United States, through
the Congress, of our land rights.

We recognize that when European nations secured colonies in parts of
the world already inhabited by indigenous peoples, there never was gentle
treatment of the aborigines. The European vanguards came to exploit
the new land, and to civilize its peoples.

The Alaskan experience was no different. When Alaska was first sighted
in 1741, the Native population numbered about 74,700. Thirteen years
after Alaska was sold by the Russians, the population was decimated
to 33,000. The Eskimo population went from about 54,000 to about 18,000,
in just 150 years.

Although this Congress is considering the future of Eskimo societies
in relation to Arctic development, I will speak of the "Native"
people of Alaska, Indians and Aleuts, as well as Eskimos, since we are
all subject. to the effects of the many changes brought to our ancient
lands through industrialization and technological advances. Furthermore,
if the Eskimo is to be successful in trying to influence public policy
in Alaska and in the United States Congress, it is necessary that we
Eskimos work with the Indians and Aleuts, which, in fact, we are doing,
as will be described later.

Most of the world is now aware of the fact that vast deposits of oil
have been found on the Arctic Slope of Alaska. It may be less well known
that there is presently a great controversy as to whom that land and
other lands actually belong. Since Alaska is the homeland of 55,000
Eskimo, Indian, and Aleut people; and since the land has never been
specifically taken from by act of the United States Congress, or in
battle, or by abandonment; we declare, indeed, proclaim, that by reason
of historic use and occupancy, this is our land.

In order to see our problem in accurate perspective, one must know
the historical approach of the United States in dealing with the Indians
of the main body of what is now the United States, what necessitated
the encroachment of Indian territory, how the acquisitions took place,
what the Indians received, and why it is that our present situation
is so different in approach and in substance.

The American Indian; Theory
of Indian Title

The American colonists came in search of a new life. They were not
numerous and had to depend, to some extent, on the good will of the
American Indian. Following the separation of the colonies from England,
the new government had to deal with the Indian tribes as separate nations.
They signed treaties with them and negotiated with them as equals. However,
the number of Americans increased greatly and the pressures of settlement
created greater demand for lands held by the Indians. Consequently,
the Indians resisted American efforts at gaining more land, since they
did not care to be pushed further west, and the period of the Indian
Wars took place. Being numerically inferior and having less firepower,
the Indians were defeated and had to cede large areas of land to the
United States. Usually a small area was left to each tribe for its use
and held in trust for them by the federal government.

Today, the Indians of the mainland hold only 50 million acres of land,
and it is the poorest land in the nation. The Indians, however, have
been allowed access to the courts to sue the federal government for
compensation of the land they lost, whether in battle or by act of Congress.
In court the Indians have had to prove that they had "Indian Title"
to the land, that is, that they used and occupied the entire claimed.
They have had to prove that this land taken from them at a particular
time. Once proved,compensation was paid to them for the taking, with
compensation based upon the value of the land at the time of taking.
The United States set up the Indian Claims Commission for the sole purpose
of trying to pay money for depriving the Indian of his lands. To date,
about 251 million dollars has been paid to the Indian tribes., The litigation
usually takes years and pits the Indian against the federal government.
The compensation for millions of acres of is usually a small sum, when
compared with the true value of the land.

It should be noted that the United States Constitution reserves to
the federal government the responsibilities of dealing with the Indian
tribes and the United States through executive order.

Tribe after tribe succumbed to the power of the United States. The
Indian could not protect his land. How did the Eskimo fare? What about
the Aleut and Indian in Alaska?

The Arrival of the Russians;
Treatment of the Natives

The Russians first sighted the Alaskan land mass in 1741. At the time
of their arrival, it is estimated that there were about 74,000 Alaskan
Natives. Russia wanted the sea otter, the fur seal and other resources
of our lands. There was little penetration into the populous portions
of the giant territory. Ports were established and trade ensued. The
Aleuts were subjugated and made to gather food and work for the Russians.
The Russians were under orders not to move into new territories among
the Eskimo and Indian without consent. In practice, this was generally
ignored. Nevertheless, the Russians exploited Alaska from 1741 to 1867,
and by the time of the transfer to the United States there were about
35,000 Native people in the territory.2

The Treaty of Cession; 1867

Without consultation with the Eskimo, Indian, and Aleut people, the
Russian government, for 7.2 million dollars, sold Alaska to the United
States.

Russia was in a war in the Crimea and was in danger of losing Alaska
to other countries. The treaty of Cession did not provide for the citizenship
of the Native people as it did for the white inhabitants. Section 3
of the Treaty stated that, "the uncivilized Native tribes will
be subject to such laws and regulations as the United States may, from
time to time, adopt in regard to aboriginal tribes of that country."3

There was no confirmation of title to lands used and occupied by the
Native people. Among some Natives there was discontent, but as the historian
Bancroft put it:

"The discontent arose, not from any antagonism to the Americans
but from the fact that the territory had been sold without their
consent, and that they had received none of the proceeds of the
sale. The Russians, they agreed, had been allowed to occupy the
territory mostly for mutual benefit, but their forefathers had dwelt
in Alaska long before any white man had set foot in America. Why
had not the 71/2 million dollars been paid to them instead of the
Russians?"4

There was not then, nor has there ever been any agreement by the Eskimo,
Indian and Aleut people to the extinguishment of their ownership of
lands in Alaska. At the time of the sale there were about 400 whites
in Alaska; for all practical purposes, Alaska was still Native land,
but encumbered by the law between nations following "discovery"
and the transfer of money.

The Organic Act of 1884

The Organic Act of 1884 was passed by the U.S. Congress in response
to the clamor by whites, who needed to receive title to lands upon which
they had discovered gold, and for the purpose of establishing civil
government. Military detachments had governed the territory 1867 and
1884. This Act is the first specific pronouncement by the United States
regarding the land of the Eskimos, Indians and Aleuts. It provided in
strong terms for the protection of Native land rights:

"Indians or other persons in said district shall not be disturbed
in the possession of any lands actually in their use or occupation
or now claimed by them, but the terms under which such persons may
acquire title to such lands is reserved for future legislation by
the U.S. Congress."5

Although limited legislation has been enacted to allow for the acquisition
of title by individual Natives or villages, there has not been specific
congressional action to determine completely the extent of Native Use
and occupation" and whether we should be granted title to those
areas.

Statehood Act; The Built
in Conflict

By 1959, Alaska's total population had grown to about 200,000 persons,
including about 43,000 Eskimos, Indians and Aleuts. The Alaskan population
sought and received Statehood. The Constitution of the newly admitted
State of Alaska provided protection to the Native people by stating
that:

"The State and its people further disclaim all right or title
in or to any property, including fishing rights, the right or title
to which may be held by or for any Indian, Eskimo or Aleut, or community
thereof, as that right is defined in the Act of Admission."6

There was hope that the Act of Admission to Statehood would dispose
of the Native land issue, but it did not:

"As a compact with the United States, said State and its people
do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right title
. . . to any lands or other property (including fishing rights),
the right or title to which may be held by any Indians, Eskimos
or Aleuts or is held by the United States in trust for said Natives;
that all such lands or other property, belonging to the United States
or which may belong to said Natives, shall be and remain under the
absolute jurisdiction and control of the United States until disposed
of under its authority."7

The new state allowed the Congress to retain jurisdiction over the
disposition of the Native Land rights issue. But a potential conflict
was created when the Congress authorized the new state to select 130
million acres from the land mass of Alaska, land that was being used
and occupied by Native people. How could the new state, on one hand,
disclaim all right or title to our land and at the same time be allowed
to select it under another provision of the Statehood Act?

This issue is being tested in the courts and it is the Native position
that the Native title has not been specifically extinguished and the
State must await congressional action to determine further the allocation
of lands between the State and the Native people.

The Eskimo, Indian and Aleut populations were adversely affected first
by the Russians, who came in search of valuable furs, then by the whalers
and fishermen from ports around the world, and beginning in the 1890's,
for several decades, by fortune seekers during the great gold rush.
Because of the vast influx of foreigners, the Native people suffered
disease and later, starvation due to the taking of much game and fish
that the villagers utilized.

Furthermore, the Native people were not citizens. They could not hold
land or stake mining claims. Consequently, the Native people were pushed
off valuable lands that they used and lived on, because they did not
hold deeds or other written recognized evidence of ownership.

To this day, so little attention has been paid by government officials
to the need for formal ownership of land by the Native people, that
only a tiny fraction of the privately held land in Alaska is owned by
first inhabitants; of the State's 375 million acres,Alaska Natives possess
fee title to only 500 acres.8

As a result, in part, of the inability of the Native to hold title
to land, or to acquire title, economic development has taken place,
but little benefit has accrued to the Eskimo and Indian people. This
has been true of the gold rush period, the period of copper, tin and
other minerals, and it will be true of the oil era, unless a change
is brought about through federal legislation. It is just such action
that the Alaska Federation of Natives is seeking to promote, and is
the major reason for its creation.

The Alaska Federation of
Natives

As the State of Alaska began to make its first selections of land under
the State,hood Act, it was plain that these selections were being made
in areas used and occupied by us, the Native people. As a consequence,
village councils began to protest the State selections and appealed
to the Secretary of Interior (who is manager of America's public lands,
and "guardian" of the Native people) to stop the granting
of Native-claimed lands to the State.

Regional organizations of Native villages sprung up and, in a unified
manner, claimed whole regions which were used and occupied by the village
people This process continued and virtually the entire state was blanketed
by Native claims. The Secretary of the Interior was initially at a loss
as to what should done in view of the unclear legal directions provided
in the Act of Admission to statehood and his role as Guardian"
of the Native people. At this point time, the Alaska Federation of Natives
was organized.

The Alaska Federation of Natives emerged as moving force in 1966 because
of the threat to Natives. Initially the Federation consisted of 19 regional
and village groups. It presently is a vehicle through which the various
regional groups are pushing for a settlement.

The creation of the Federation changed the political face of Alaska.
Eskimos, Indians and Aleuts comprise about 30 percent of the voting
public in Alaska. The year 1966 marked a turning point for the Native
people, in that this was the first time in history we had a unified
effort to promote an equitable land settlement, and organized to change
public policy that was adverse to us.

The Federation was seen by the political leaders of the State as a
vehicle with which they could work to become elected. In fact, 1966
was the year the pre, sent Secretary of the Interior was elected Governor
of Alaska, in part, by appealing to the Native vote.

The Federation now has programs in economic development planning, on-the-job
training, health care and village leadership training.

The Land Freeze

The Federation immediately began to work for a halt to disposition
of land to the State, until the U.S. Congress could make a determination
regarding Native rights to the land. Of course, the State continued
to seek to secure land for sale and development. Secretary Udall ordered
the Bureau of Land Management, an agency in the Department of the Interior,
to cease processing of applications for patent in lands that were being
claimed by Eskimo, Indian and Aleut people. This came to be known as
the "land freeze." This administrative order was later formalized
by Secretary Udall, by withdrawal of all Alaskan lands from disposal
to the State, or to any others, until the U.S. Congress has an opportunity
to act on the matter. But the "freeze" will be lifted at the
end of 1970, if no action is taken.

The importance of the "land freeze" to the Native people
is that it prevents anyone, including the State, from taking lands that
may be granted to villages in a congressional settlement. Furthermore
the pressure for a settlement continues on all parties so long as the
status quo on land disposition remains. The Native people, the State,
the Interior Department, and the Committees of Congress are all actively
working toward a settlement.

Were it not for the "freeze," the State would go its merry
way selecting Native-claimed lands, and would not lift a finger to help
us obtain justice, unless some enlightened administration saw a value
in doing so.

The Major Proposals Before
the U.S. Congress

Three legislative proposals are now pending before the United States
Congress. Before this year ends, it is likely that in one house of the
Congress, the Senate, the committee considering the land claims will
have completed its work, and a bill will have begun its way to becoming
law.

The first proposal, and the one to which the Alaska Federation of Natives
and the Department of the Interior have proposed amendments, is based
upon elements of a legislative settlement suggested by the Federal Field
Committee, a small federal research organization in Alaska. This bill
includes conveyance of one township of land (23,040 acres) to each of
209 listed Native villages, payment of 100 million dollars from funds
appropriated by the Congress in a lump sum, and payment of a ten percent
share of the revenues derived from federal lands within Alaska, and
outer continental shelf lands off the shore of Alaska, for a period
of ten years. (It is important here to understand that the State of
Alaska now shares in 90 percent of the revenues from on, shore federal
lands in Alaska.) All mineral rights under the village townships are
to be given to, and administered by, a statewide Native corporation,
which is also charged with the management and disbursement of appropriated
funds and shared revenues. During its first ten years the corporation,
whose stockholders are to be all Alaska Natives, is to be rather closely
controlled. At the end of that time, it is to become an ordinary business
corporation with its shares of stock freely bought and sold.

Very important to the content and form of any legislative proposal
is the viewpoint of the executive branch of the national government.
This viewpoint is expressed in an amendment submitted by the Secretary
of the Interior, Walter J. Hickel. This provides for conveyance of one
township of land to each of 13 named villages, now located in a National
Forest, and two townships (46,080 acres) of land to each of an additional
192 villages. Locatable minerals, that is, gold, silver, lead, zinc,
etc., are also conveyed with the surface title to the land, but leaseable
minerals, that is, oil, gas and sulfur, are retained by the national
government. As compensation for Native land use rights extinguished
in the past, and by this settlement, a total sum of 500 million dollars
is to be appropriated by the Congress in twenty equal annual sums. The
closely controlled, statewide, Native-owned corporation to administer
funds is adopted in this proposal, but the period of its control is
extended to twenty years.

The proposal prepared by the Alaska Federation of Natives provides
for either four townships (92,160 acres) or 500 acres of land per person,
whichever is greater, for each of 242 listed villages as well as four
sections (640 acres each) in each township in the state to the appropriate
regional Native corporation. These conveyances include all mineral rights.
As compensation, 500 million dollars is to be granted by the Congress,
payable 100 million dollars the first year, and 50 million dollars each
of the eight years following. Because much of the land of Alaska is
still occupied and used by Alaska Natives, as their ancestors used the
land, it is also proposed that two percent of the proceeds from the
lease or sale of federal lands in Alaska be paid to Alaska Natives,
for the extinguishment of this present right of use and occupancy. It
is this part of our proposal, and its extension to the lands, which
the State of Alaska is entitled to choose under the terms of the Act
admitting Alaska to the United States as a state, which some say is
alienating many non-Native Alaskans.

There are other obvious differences of degree in the three proposals:
between five million acres and 40 million acres; between 500 million
dollars and 500 million dollars plus a two percent royalty in perpetuity;
between ten and twenty years of governmental supervision. But, from
one of these proposals, or from parts of all of them, it is anticipated
there will emerge the terms of settlement of a century-old claim.

Consequences of a Poor Settlement
or No Settlement

The Native people of Alaska have had to be realists in dealing with
the state and concerning the land issue. In terms of theory relating
to Indian Title, we know still retain the land, but only Congress can
or extinguish, our ownership.

Our initial reaction in 1966 was to ask for confirmation to all lands
we use and occupy today. But we knew this was impossible under the political
circumstances. Our position has been to go for what we feel is within
reason, but not to buckle when pressure is brought to bear before we
reach Capitol Hill.

Great pressure can be exerted to try to force us into going through
the courts, which is a costly and lengthy route to go, and would result
in no land grants and small money amounts. But, we feel that a Congressional
settlement is within reach, and are putting our efforts in that direction.

The Senate and House Interior and Insular Affairs have both been to
Alaska for hearings, and we have traveled to Washington (as did the
Indians a century ago) to present our case.

We are testing the American political system. We have found it responsive
up to this time, and have hope. We know the history of our country in
dealing with the American Indian, and want to see a final chapter not
written in blood, or in deception, or in injustice. We are not numerous,
and recognize the pitfalls in securing this unprecedented kind of legislation.

We are seeking an alternative to wardship. We seek to offer alternatives
to Eskimo and Indian people, rather than a one-way ticket into the confused
mainstream. We feel our people cannot convert to a cash economy overnight
and will continue to fish and hunt for many years. On the other hand,
we see that the young Natives seek education and new places. These should
be available. We want to be able to live longer and more decently, without
having to stoop in indignity because of a degrading welfare system.
We feel this is possible, if we can secure the kind of land settlement
we are proposing.

If there is no settlement, or a poor one, we will have a generation
of leaders, who fought for years to protect their land and lost. This
may start a chain of events, in which it is seen by future generations
of Natives as a disaster for us, an injustice that will mar the relations
between Natives and whites for many years. It may bring defeatism to
the people, and will prevent us from becoming an integral part of Alaska's
social and economic development. Our present political influence will
diminish and the efforts to develop our communities will falter. Such
would be the consequences of a poor settlement or no settlement. Not
only that, but America will have lost an opportunity to right old wrongs
and for once, allow the first Americans a fair deal.

William Hensley is an Inupiaq from the NANA Region. He was instrumental
in focusing attention on the issue of Alaska Native land claims. He
was also a key figure in organizing the Alaska Federation of Natives,
the first statewide Native organization. He and other Alaska Natives
within AFN fought for the settlement of land claims, which resulted
in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

Today, William Hensley is the Chairman of the Board for United Bank
of Alaska and is President of NANA Regional Corporation. He continues
to play an active role concerning state and Alaska Native issues.

Reprinted courtesy of the Department of Native Studies, the University
of Alaska, Fairbanks.